DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 375 139 SP 035 550

AUTHOR Lenze, Lisa Firing; Dinham, Sarah M.TITLE Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge of College

Faculty New to Teaching.INSTITUTION National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning,

and Assessment, University Park, PA.SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),

Washington, DC.PUB DATE Apr 94NOTE 22p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association (NewOrleans, LA, April 4-8, 1994).

PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150) ReportsResearch /Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Beginning Teachers; Case Studies; *College Faculty;

College Students; Higher Education; NontenuredFaculty; Performance Factors; Problem Solving;Student Problems; *Teacher Attitudes; *Teacher

Response; *Teacher Student RelationshipIDENTIFIERS *Pedagogical Content Knowledge; *Teacher Knowledge

ABSTRACTWhile college faculty are experts in their

disciplines, teaching expertise is less understood. This paperexplores one aspect of the pedagogical content knowledge of facultynew to teaching, specifically, knowledge of student difficulties. Theproject, conducted at three different institutions, used a casemethod, employing interviews and observations. Novices (N=11) wereinterviewed about the common difficulties students encountered in aspecified introductory college course. Synthesis of data from thecases resulted in a working model of new faculty members' knowledgeof student difficulties, including how difficulties are discerned,the actual content and processes of student difficulties, principlesof action for overcoming difficulties, what faculty do in response tostudent difficulties, and how faculty know what they know aboutstudent difficulties. Results suggest that the core of what facultyknow about student difficulties is represented by problems withspecific content, problems with academic processes, and variablesthat affect students' understanding. Implications for facultydevelopment and agendas for future research on this and other aspectsof pedagogical content knowledge are included. (Contains 22references.) (LL)

************************************************************************ Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

EXAMINING PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

OF COLLEGE FACULTY NEW TO TEACHING

Lisa Firing Lenze

Northwestern University and

National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMAl ERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY'/TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC!."

and

Sarah M. Dinham

University of Arizona

April, 1994

U.5 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOnce ol Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERICI

0 This document hal been reproduced asreceived Nom the person or organizationOriginating

0 Minor changes have been mad* to improvereOrOducliOn duality

Points of view or opinions stated in this dOCurnent do not necessarily represent odiciatOERI positron W policy

Presentatior, at the 1994 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.Chart essay format suggested by Haensly, Lupkowski, & McNamara (1987).

The New Faculty Project is supported by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) of theUnited States Department of Education through the National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, andAssessment. NCTLA, an effort of a consortium of universities, is located at Pennsylvania State University.The New Faculty Project, based at Northwestern University, is under the direction of Robert J. Menges,Professor of Education and Social Policy. The opinions herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policyof OERI, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge of College Faculty New to Teaching

Ala=This paper examines one aspect of Shulman's notion of pedagogical content knowledge:knowledge of student difficulties. At three different types of institutions, *1- ) authors interviewedeleven faculty members, new to teaching, about the common difficulties students encountered in aspecified introductory college course. Results took the form of a working model of novice facultymembers' knowledge of student difficulties, including how they learn about student difficulties,the actual content and processes with which students have difficulties, principles of action forovercoming difficulties, what faculty do in response to difficulties, and how faculty know whatthey know about difficulties. Implications for faculty development and agendas for future researchon this and other aspects of pedagogical content knowledge are included.

Keywords (in order of importance)

Pedagogical-Content-Knowledge, Teacher-Knowledge, Novice-Teacher, College-Faculty,University-Faculty, Higher-Education

Chart 1

PROBLEM STATEMENT

While college faculty are experts in their disciplines, their expertise as teachers is less

understood. This study explores the teacher knowledge of faculty new to teaching.

New Faculty as Teachers

New college faculty desire to succeed as teachers (Baldwin & Blackburn, 1981) andspend a great deal of time preparing for teaching (Sorcinelli, 1988; Turner & Boice,1987).

However, they arrive at their first academic position with little or no formal knowledgeof teaching (van der Bogert, 1991).

Still, new faculty carry heavy teaching loads (7in.kelstein & LaCelle-Peterson, 1992;Trautvetter, 1992) in the midst of highly stressful first years of professional work(Dinham, 1992) in which they demonstrate informal understandings about teaching(Fink, 1984).

Call for Research on Teacher Knowledge in Higher Education

Contemporary researchers agree that understanding teacher knowledge and thinking iscritical to understanding teaching (Clark & Dunn, 1991; Clark & Peterson, 1986;Fenstermacher, 1994). Yet, research on teaching in higher education has historicallyfocused on teacher behaviors (Dunkin & Barnes, 1986).

New directions for research on college teaching include research on teacher knowledge,beliefs, and decisions (Dunkin & Barnes, 1986) and on teachers' thinking and planning(Dinham & Blake, 1991).

Research Questions

Using conceptualizations of teacher knowledge from secondary education (Shulman,1986, 1987), this study focuses on a specific area of teachers' practical knowledgereferred to as pedagogical content knowledge.

In the larger investigation from which this report is the first, we ask:

"What pedagogical content knowledge do college faculty new to teaching possess?"

Faculty's Pedagogical Content Knowledge 2 AERA, 19944

Chart 2

RESEARCH ABOUT TEACHER KNOWLEDGE

Research on teacher knowledge has recently expanded from investigations of

teachers' formal knowledge to include practical knowledge. One conception of

practical knowledge--pedagogical content knowledge--frames this study of the

knowledge held by college faculty new to teaching.

Teacher Knowledge in Secondary Education

Virtually all the research on teacher knowledge has concerned elementary andsecondary education teachers. Of the two, subject-based sxonclary-level teachingprovides the greater relevance for college teaching of academic subjects.

Research on teacher knowledge rests in either of two conceptions of teacher knowledge(Fenstermacher, 1994):

formal knowledge (largely, that derived from educational science)

practical knowledge (also called craft knowledge or the "wisdom of practice")

Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Of the several research programs addressing practical knowledge, one of the mostuseful for informing thought about college teachers' knowledge is that of Shulman(1986, 1987) and his associates (e.g., Grossman, 1990, 1991), who use the term"pedagogical content knowledge" to describe how knowledge about teaching is tied to,influenced by, and part of the content being taught.

Within the category of pedagogical content knowledge I include, for the mostregularly taught topics in one's subject area, the most useful forms ofrepresentations of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples,explanations, and demonstrations--in a word, ways of representing and formulatingthe subject that make it comprehensible to others.... Pedagogical content knowledgealso includes an understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy ordifficult; the conceptions and preconceptions that students of different ages andbackgrounds bring with them to the learning of those most frequently taught topicsand lessons (Shulman, 1986, 9-10).

Grossman's (1991) more recent definition categolizes four aspects of pedagogicalcontent knowledge: 1) what content is most ire 1. ortant to know (focus on the subjectmatter), 2) students' prior knowledge and misunderstandings (focus on students), 3)the order in which subject matter should be presented (focus on curriculum), and 4) theinstructional strategies useful for teaching a given subject (focus on pedagogy).

Faculty's Pedagogical Content Knowledge 3 AERA, 1"94

J

Chart 2

RESEARCH ABOUT TEACHER KNOWLEDGE (continued)

Investigating Pedagogical Content Knowledge of College Teachers

Our ongoing research on college faculty new to teaching investigates pedagogicalcontent knowledge through several approaches, one being the framework suggested byGrossman's conceptualization:

knowledge of purposes and goals for the subject area

curricular knowledge, both intra- and inter-course, within the discipline

knowledge of student attitudes, prior knowledge, misconceptions, and difficultieswith the subject

knowledge of instructional strategies for the subject area

This paper begins the process of unfolding teacher knowledge for college faculty newto teaching by addressing the question:

"How are student difficulties with course content understood and dealt with by facultymembers new to teaching?"

Faculty's Pedagogical Content Knowledge 4 AERA, 1994

Chart 3

RESEARCH PROCEDURES

Part of the New Faculty Project, this study of teacher knowledge held by faculty

members new to college teaching used a case method, employing interviews and

observations. The data were coded and classified to yield a map displaying the

complexity of new teachers' practical knowledge.

Participants

Twelves faculty members (4 ;TOM each of three types of colleges/universities) werechosen for inclusion, based on their minimal teaching experience, from a pool of 88newly hired tenure-track faculty participating in the New Faculty Project interviews.

Participant demographics and teaching experience appear in Tables 1 and 2 on the nextpage.

Design

This study is designed as a longitudinal, three-year case study. This report spans thefirst two years of the study.

We use a single case method (Yin, 1989)--a case of pedagogical content knowledge inhigher education.

A focused approach (Yin, 1989) all( xed us to examine one aspect of pedagogicalcontent knowledge--understandings about student difficulties--from faculty members'perspective.

Data Collection

Interviews and observations were the main methods of data collection. Threeresearchers (one assigned to each institution) underwent extensive interview training toensure like goals and methods.

Researchers interviewed participants four times (once in fall, 1991 and three times infall, 1992) and observed their teaching (in fall, 1992). Observed classes and interviewsabout observed classes were tape recorded.

1 One faculty member from the research university withdrew when researchers arrived oncampus, yielding a total of eleven participants.

Fact,,,, a Pedagogical Content Knowledge 5 AERA, : 94

Chart 3

RESEARCH PROCEDURES (Continued)

Table 1

Demographics of New Faculty 4embers

Gender Field Institution

Bob Male Political Science Research University

Maxene Female Linguistics Research University

Robert Male Statistics Research University

David Male Computer Science Liberal Arts College

Keith Male Geology Liberal Arts College

Margaret Female Linguistics Liberal Arts College

Rachael Female Spanish Liberal Arts College

Carl Male Math Community College

Harvey Male Math Community College

Rhonda Female Math Community College

Juanita Female Spanish Community College

Faculty's Pedagogical Content Knowledge 6 AERA, 1994

Chart 3

RESEARCH PROCEDURES (Continued)

Table 2

Number of Years Teaching Experience of New Faculty Members upon Hiring

Bob

Maxene

Robert

As Instructorat 4-yrInstitution

As Instructorat 2-yrInstitution

AsTeachingAssistant

As 10or 20Teacher

1.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

David 1.0 3.0

Keith 4.0

Margaret 1.0

Rachael 4.0 0.5

Carl 5.0

Harvey 6.0

Rhonda 4.0

Juanita 1.0 3.0

0 10 refers to elementary school, and 20 refers to secondary school.

Faculty's Pedagogical Content Knowledge 7 AERA, 1994

Chart 3

RESEARCH PROCEDURES (Continued)

Data Analysis

In the analytic induction (Jacobs & Jackson, 1982) process, coding categories emergedfrom the data. Four tiers of analysis occurred:

in an open round of coding, we read three data sets to generate a coding scheme.

Subsequent readings of eight data sets established concurrence and informed ourgrouping and refinements of codes.

We expanded the coding groups to determine dimensions, relationships, and axesof codes and their categories.

The coding scheme was subjected to concept mapping to develop core concepts andthemes and to establish an overarching conceptual scheme.

Faculty's Pedagogical Content Knowledge 8 AERA, 1994

0

Chart 4

FINDINGS: WORKING MODEL OF TEACHER KNOWLEDGE

Synthesis of the data from this case study resulted in a working model of teacher

knowledge in higher education, depicted in Diagram 1 at the bottom of the page.

Description of Working Model Parts

Part L represents how faculty learned about student difficulties in specific classes theyhave taught.

Part K represents what faculty know about student difficulties in specific classes theyhave taught. This part of the model includes knowledge of the difficulties themselvesand of the constraints that affect students' overcoming these difficulties.

Part R represents what faculty understand, in general, about the relationship betweenstudent action and overcoming difficulties.

Part D represents how faculty dealt with student difficulties in specific classes they havetaught. This part of the model addresses Shulman's (1986) conception of instructionalrepresentations and Grossman's (1991) conception of instructional strategies.

Part H represents faculty's understandings about how they know what they knowabout student difficulties and how they know what to do about student difficulties.

Diagram 1: Working Model of Teacher Knowledge in Higher Education

HON FACULTY

LEARN ABOUT

STUDENT

DIFFICULTIES

Teacher- /

initiated /

Actions /

/Stndrnt-

/ initiated

Actions

WA? FACULTY KNOW

ABOUT STUDENT DIFFICULTIESPrinciples of

Student Action

WHAT FACULTY KNOW

ABOUT RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN ACTION AND

DIFFICULTY

WHAT FACULTY SAY AMBIT NOW THEY KNOW

WHAT FACULTY DO IN

RESPONSE TO DIFFICULTY

Most Action on

Student.. Part

Least Action on

Part

(How They Know about / How Thry Know What

/Student Difficulties/ to DC about Student

/ , Difficulties

Faculty's Pedagogical Content Knowledge 9

11

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

AERA, 1994

Chart 6

Part K:WHAT FACULTY KNOW ABOUT STUDENT DIFFICULTIES

Descriptions of student difficulties centered on problems with specific content,

problems with academic processes, and variables that affect students' understanding.

This knowledge represents the core of what faculty know about student difficulties.

Knowledge about Difficulties with Specific Course Content

When pressed, faculty expressed knowledge of difficulties with specific coursecontent. They mentioned difficulty with rules, technical terminology, concepts, formaltheories, and organizing frameworks.

For example, Rhonda said, "They get to where they can do problems, but they don'tget concepts. I've started noticing that" (Case Study Data Set, 1992, Rhona - -p. 8).

Knowledge about Difficulties with the Academic ProcessesNecessary for Understanding Course Content

Faculty were more fluent in their accounts of difficulties with academic processes. Theydescribed difficulties with recognizing patterns in linguistic pronunciations ormathematical procedures, thinking in Spanish, constructing arguments to supporthypotheses, or judging the value of political perspectives.

For example, Maxene said, "These problems [with recognizing patterns] go across allstudents. Students want to study language without Lnguistics. They want to look atphenomena like babies' language development at six months, nine months, and so on.They just want to get lists of information about each stage. That's all descriptive work.But I want them to see patterns, and they need linguistics for that.... For example,today we talked about `tots' and lutches,' and I made them say the words. They areafraid to experiment, to say the words out loud, to speak and explore. So, I stand upthere and contort my face so that they will at least try to verbalize it. But only by sayingit will they hear the patterns (Case Study Data Set, 1992, Maxene--p. 6).

Knowledge about tontrAulzainamdi2LInwnDimensions

Two categories of constraints emerged: student constraints and content constraints.Student constraints, the most f-equently mentioned constraints, include lack ofprerequisite course work and affective aspects of content difficulty. By contentconstraints, we mean characteristics of course material that make it hard for anyone tolearn that material. Common content constraints include ill defined concepts, complexmaterial, abstract notions, and artificially constructed categories of information.

Two dimensions further describe faculty knowledge of student difficulties:pervasiveness and level of difficulty. Some faculty described the pervasiveness ofspecific difficulties for students in their courses and throughout the field. Fewer facultytalked about the level of student difficulty; that is, the "depth" of the misconception,misunderstanding, or lack of understanding.

Faculty's Pedagogical Content Knowledge 11 AERA, 1994

2

Chart 5

Part L:HOW FACULTY LEARN ABOUT STUDENT DIFFICULTIES

Faculty gave Many strategies for learning about student difficulties. We describe these

strategies using four conceptual dimensions, of which we regard the first as the most

useful in conveying how faculty say they learn about student difficulties.

Source of Initiation

Faculty learned about student difficulties either because they initiated action thatprovided information about students' difficulties (e.g., faculty member asks students aquestion) or because students initiated action from which faculty learned aboutdifficulties (e.g., responding to in-class events, or groaning audibly).

Ashford and Cummings' (1983) terminology for feedback activities elaborates on themeaning of teacher-initiated and student-initiated actions. They refer to the former as"feedback seeking activities" (i.e., teacher requests information) and the latter as"feedback monitoring activities" (i.e., although students initiate actions, teachers mustpay attention to students' actions in order to receive feedback about students' progress).

Level of Inference

What faculty learned about student difficulties varied according to the required level ofinference.

For example, learning about difficulties from students' body language is high-inference; learning about difficulties from students' questions is low-inference.

Frequency of Checking for Understanding

Faculty varied the frequency with which they used certain strategies (e.g., continuouschecking occurred as faculty lttended to students' responses in class; discrete checkingoccurred when faculty relied on tests or term papers).

Sometimes, faculty did not control frequency; that is, the strategies, themselves,precluded more frequent use (e.g., end-of-course evaluations occur only once).

Purpose of Checking

The reasons for gathering information, applicable only to teacher-initiated actions,varied from formative to summative.

For example, faculty learned about difficulties from in-class student questions(formative purpose) and from exams (summative purpose).

Faculty's Pedagogical Content Knowledge 10 AERA, 1994

Chart 7

Part R:WHAT FACULTY UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN STUDENT ACTION AND OVERCOMING DIFFICULTIES

Some faculty made general statements about the relationship between student action

and overcoming difficulties and about the type of actions students engage in.

Principles of Student Action

Faculty mentioned that student action is necessary for overcoming difficulties. Keithexplained:

I really think the only way to get through this is through iteration.... Because everytime you go through this, you get a little more. You know, it's like Thermo--Physical Chemistry, you know? About the third time you take it, you understand it.And this is conceptually on a similar scale (Case Study Data Set, 1992, Keith--p.26).

Faculty talked about a variety of student actions that they believed would help studentsovercome difficulties. Most commonly, they mentioned practicing. For instance,Rachael and Margaret said, respectively:

If you would ask me what is the tense they have more trouble with, I would say it'sthe subjunctive.... I guess it's just a matter of practice. I think they need a lot ofinput. And one hour three times a week is not enough. If they would get a lot ofinput, like a lot of the students that go and study abroad and come back, thatproblem almost disappears. So, it's a matter of practicing, of using it. Until you getthe difference" (Case Study Data Set, 1992, Rachael--p. 18-19).

One of the things they are supposed to be learning, according to me, is syntacticargumentation. How you argue for a particular position. And they're weak at thatwhole idea... [What helps is] just, just practice. You know, just exercises either inclass or on homework where they're forced to argue for a position...You have tolearn syntax by doing (Case Study Data Set, 1992, Margaret--p. 8-10).

Other actions that faculty believed would help students overcome difficulties includerepeating efforts; reading materials before and after class; coming up with examples;listening, rather than taking notes; and doing homework problems.

Faculty's Pedagogical Content Knowledge 12

1 4AERA, 1994

Chart 8

Part D:WHAT FACULTY DO IN RESPONSE TO STUDENT DIFFICULTIES

Five categories describe how faculty deal with stucient difficulties. These categories

range from most to least action on the student's part. Two categories predominate.

Faculty Have Students Do Something

Often, faculty had students do something to help students overcome the difficulty. Forexample, faculty had students do exercises, give each other feedback, or work throughproblems by writing, talking, or otherwise making explicit their thinking.

David said that doing a particular type of exercise--coming up with algorithms--is acommon way to help students overcome their difficulty with developing algorithms: "Ihave them do--come up with algorithms, either informal (a pseudo code kind of thing)or, typically, more formal Pascal to solve the particular kind of problem. So, I mean,that's in a sense what the course is about. Let's practice lots and lots of these" (CaseStudy Data Set, 1992, David--p. 29).

Bob explained that in order to help his students analyze texts and political theory, hehas his students give each other feedback: "In discussion sections, what I do is havethem criticize each other, because that's just what happens naturally in discussions--oneperson says something and soon enough people disagree and learn from this" (CaseStudy Data Set, 1992, Bob--Q 23).

Faculty Do Something

Most often, faculty themselves took action to help students overcome the difficulty. Theactivities they mentioned ranged from most action with the material and most interactionbetween faculty and students (e.g., prodding students, with questions, to work througha difficulty or modeling how to think) to least action with the material and leastinteraction (e.g., stating a rule or correcting an answer).

David said that modeling his thinking helps students understand the idea of abstractionin computer programming: "A technique that I like using in courses...[is] trying to leadthem through my thought processes...you know, obviously we're going to need a loophere as part of our algorithm. You know, what kind of a loop should we use? Whatneeds to be done before the loop? What steps need to be inside of here? And let's lookfor patterns" (Case Study Data Set, 1992, David--p. 27-28).

Juanita explained that giving students the rules for the imperfect tense in Spanish helpsthem overcome the difficulty of knowing when to use the imperfect tense: "Well, I justgo through the rules, and then I drill.... Like for example, I would say that you use theimperfect when you are reminiscing in the past. Anytime that you can substitute 'usedto,' like, 'I used to like to go to my grandma's house,' or, 'I used to eat berries when Iwas ten,' anything that you can substitute 'used to,' you can use the imperfect" (CaseStudy Data Set, 1992, Juanita--p. 7).

Faculty's Pedagogical Content Knowledge 13

t-0AERA, 1994

Chart 8

Part D: WHAT FACULTY DO (Continued)

Faculty Ask for Further Information

Some faculty asked for further information, either about the difficulty or about how tosolve the difficulty.

For example, Rhonda said, "Sometimes I'll ask, 'Does it help to draw pictures or totalk?' Nine out of ten say pictures" (Case Study Data Set, 1991, Rhonda--Q23).

Faculty Defer the Problem

Faculty also deferred certain difficulties. This was a common strategy if a question wasfar above the level of the class or if only one student did not understand.

For example, Harvey told us, "If they try the exercises, if they are trying and notgetting through it all the time, once they've made an effort, I suggest they come in andtalk to me and ask some questions" (Case Study Data Set, 1992, Harvey--p. 1).

Faculty Dismiss the Problem

One faculty member admitted to dismissing some difficulties.

She said, "This class, it's so huge.... This makes it difficult to teach--they allunderstand different things. Sometimes I have to say, 'That's above this level' (CaseStudy Data Set, 1991, Maxene--Q23).

Faculty's Pedagogical Content Knowledge 14 AERA, 1994

16

Chart 9

Part H:WHAT FACULTY SAY ABOUT HOW THEY KNOW

While this phase of the project did not focus on how faculty know what they know

about student difficulties with course content2, our faculty offered information on

sources of their pedagogical content knowledge.

How They Know about Student Difficulties

Most commonly, faculty said they know about student difficulties from their ownpersonal experience--either as a teacher or as a student. Keith explained, "I canremember, still, very vividly how difficult it was for me to understand this" (CaseStudy Data Set, 1992, Keith--p. 38).

Some faculty said they gained knowledge of student difficulties from colleagues. Forexample, Robert said, "I was warned, by someone who taught the course before, of thedifficulties I'd run into" (Case Study Data Set, 1992, Robert--p. 4).

How They Know What to Do about Student Difficulties

Almost all faculty offered information on how they know what to do, most oftencrediting personal experience, either as a student or as a teacher. Carl shared aparticularly vivid memory of what helped him learn about mathematical functions whenhe was a student:

When I first learned functions, I liked The Who--the rock group, The Who. And"Magic Bus" was a fairly common, frequently played song on the radio. And Iremember having the same struggle with functions, and I was listening to the radio,doing my math homework...and "The Magic Bus" came on. And for some reason,I visualized, at the time, that the magic bus--the inside of the bus was my function.And a number would come on the bus and leave a different number. And it just-[worked]" (Case Study Data Set, 1992, Carl--p. 8-9).

Many faculty also alluded to tacit principles that told them a particular strategy wouldwork (e.g., saying they realize that student work is better than teacher talk).

Other sources of knowledge included colleagues who shared their knowledge, studentswho told faculty that certain strategies work, and disciplinary norms for dealing withparticular difficulties.

2 Third year data, exploring the issue of how faculty know what they know, will beincorporated into future papers.

Faculty's Pedagogical Content Knowledge 151 '7

AERA, 1994

Chart 10

CONCLUSIONS

From our analysis of the recurrence of issues for each faculty member and our analysis

of the variability across the eleven faculty members, we discerned four conclusions.

Mat this Study Tells Us about Faculty_, b . I I I . "A

Faculty new to teaching vary substantially in their understandings of course content andin their strategies for helping students overcome difficulties with course content. Thisvariation is not attributable to experience, as these faculty members are relatively new tocollege teaching.

In describing student difficulties, faculty mentionvd substantive course content lessreadily than they mentioned the academic processes necessary for understanding coursecontent. This salience of academic processes could reveal the neophyte's tendency toblame the student or could sigma that faculty understand the particular academicprocesses required for particular content.

The role of student action and its relationship with student difficulty emergedthroughout the data. Faculty were quick to acknowledge the centrality of student actionin student learning. Furthermore, some faculty believe they play a part in bringingabout student action.

For most faculty, knowledge of student difficulty was inextricably linked to the contentarea.

Faculty's Pedagogical Content Knowledge 16

lb AERA, 1994

Chart 11

IMPLICATIONS

A constructivist perspective suggests that for instructional developers to be successful

agents of change, they must work from faculty members' prior knowledge about

teaching. This study of teacher knowledge suggests several actions for consideration.

IImplications for Faculty Development

For many faculty, this study was an intervention. They had never reflected on how theydeal with student difficulties. Instructional developers might help faculty reflect on anddiagnose student difficulties.

While our detailed picture of teacher knowledge of student difficulties comes fromeleven faculty members, any one faculty member's knowledge is less substantial thanthis overall picture implies. This suggests that when dealing with the topic of studentdifficulty, instructional developers should approach the topic cautiously, anticipatingvariance from faculty member to faculty member.

Although our working model suggests two clear categories of content and processdifficulties, faculty did not express this distinction readily. Instructional developerscould help faculty distinguish between these difficulties and reflect on the strategiesuseful for helping students overcome the two types of difficulties.

Instructional developers might consider developing faculty members' knowledge of therelationship between student action and student difficulties. Although almost all facultyacknowledged the importance of students "doing" or "practicing," few could explainwhy this was important.

In order to best connect with faculty members' understandings, instructional developersshould consider planning discipline-specific, decentralized activities. Or if resources donot permit, in centralized sessions, instructional developers should at least acknowledgeand foster discussion about the link between content, student difficulty, and teaching.

Faculty's Pedagogical Content Knowledge 171

AERA, 19949

Chart 12

FUTURE RESEARCH

This paper reviews preliminary findings from the first in a series of studies within a

larger research program exploring the pedagogical content knowledge of faculty new

to teaching. Here, we present the research agenda for the larger program and

directions for future research to be undertaken by others.

Research Agenda for this Program of Research

We expect to address other aspects of teachers' knowledge of student knowledgethrough observational data (from faculty members' classrooms) and written data (from

:ulty members' students) we collected.

We will also examine other aspects of pedagogical content knowledge: knowledge ofgoals and purposes, curricular knowledge, and knowledge of instructional strategies.

Simultaneously, we will explore pedagogical content knowledge as revealed in thedesign and management of students' academic work for the courses we observed.

Directions for Future Research

This study leaves unexplored many intriguing questions about new faculty members'pedagogical content knowledge. For example, how do faculty understandings ofstudent difficulties vary across disciplines?

Do faculty describe student difficulties in the context of substantive content because thatcontent is the only context in which they have seen student difficulty, or becausestudent difficulty is truly content-bound?

What is the linkage between deeply understanding students' difficulties and effectivelyhelping students overcome them?

One faculty member explicitly stated the importance of studying teachers' knowledge ofdifficulties and how to deal with them:

It [Systematic Mineralogy] is a challenge to teach it... It's not my area of expertise,though my area does use mineralogy. But it's probably my favorite course to teachnow... I think I come closer probably to teaching it well than any of my othercourses, which are maybe near and dear to my heart.... I'm probably not assensitive to the battles with understanding [for my area of expertise] as I am withmineralogy. Because it's [mineralogy] not first nature to me... I have to battle withit. I have to read every time before lecture. Re-read the text, and several of them, torefresh my memory how all of this works... And I can remember still very vividlyhow difficult it was for me to understand this. And I know that I never really diduntil I had to teach it. So, I think that helps with the teaching (Case Study Data Set,1992, Keith--p. 37-38.)

Faculty's Pedagogical Content Knowledge 18 AERA, 1994

`-) fi

REFERENCES

Ashford, Susan J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource:Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, 32, 370-398.

Baldwin, Roger G., & Blackburn, Robert T. (1981). The academic career as adevelopmental process: Implications for higher education. Journal of Higher Education,52, 598 .614.

Case Study Data Set. (1991). Data from New Faculty Project case study interviews.Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

Case Study Data Set. (1992). Data from New Faculty Project case study interviews.Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

Clark, Christopher M., & Dunn, Saundra. (1991). Second-generation research onteachers' planning, intentions, and routines. In Hersholt C. Waxman & Herbert J.Walberg (Eds.), Effective Teaching: Current Research, (pp. 183-201). Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.

Clark, Christopher M., & Peterson, Penelope L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. InMerlin C. Wittrock (Ed.), H taisillookofilesearelionleaching, 3rd edition, (pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.

Dinham, Sarah M. (1992). New faculty describe a life of stress. Presentation at the annualmeeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Minneapolis, MN.

Dinham, Sarah M., & Blake, Veronica M. (1991). Design and management of academictasks in university teaching. Presentation at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Chicago: IL.

Dunkin, Michael J., & Barnes, Jennifer. (1986). Research on Teaching in Higher .

Education. In Merlin C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rdedition, (pp. 754-777). New York: Macmillan.

Fenstermacher, Gary D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge inresearch on teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review _of Research inEducation, 2Q, (in press).

Finkelstein, Martin J., & LaCelle-Peterson, Mark W. (1992). New and junior faculty: Areview of the literature. In Mary Deane Sorcinelli & Ann E. Austin (Eds.), DevelopingNew and Junior Faculty. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 50 (pp. 5..14). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grossman, Pamela L. (1990). Th Makin .f . T- hEducation. New York: Teachers College Press.

Faculty's Pedagogical Content Knowledge 19 21

I 1-

AERA, 1994

Grossman, Pamela L. (1991). Mapping the terrain: Knowledge growth in teaching. InHersholt C. Waxman & Herbert J. Walbert (Eds.) EffloiysaglchingieutgatResearch (pp. 203-215). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.

Haensly, P. A., Lupkowski, A. E., & McNamara, J. F. (1987). The chart-essay: Astrategy for communicating research findings to policymakers and practitioners.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2, 63-75.

Jacobs, Scott, & Jackson, Sally. (1982). Conversational argument: A discourse analyticapproach. In J. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theoryand Research (pp. 205-237). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Shulman, Lee S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.Educational Researcher, .1 (2), 4-14.

Shulman, Lee S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.Harvard Educational Review, a 1-22.

Sorcinelli, Mary Deane. (1988). Satisfactions and concerns of new university teachers. loID ta' II' % e II I I DA- 5111-1

2, 121-133.

Trautvetter, Lois Calian. (1992). A portrait of newly hired faculty at different institutionsand in four disciplinary fields. Presentation at the annual meeting of the Association forthe Study of Higher Education, Minneapolis, MN.

Turner, Jim L., & Boice, Robert. (1987). Starting at the beginning: The concerns andneeds of new faculty.Institutional Development, 41-55.

van der Bogert, Virginia. (1991). Starting out: Experiences of new faculty at a teachinguniversity. 1,0 Improve the Academy: Resources for Student. Faculty. and InstitutionalDsvelopment, la, 63-81.

Yin, Robert K. (1989). CalgatudyauarchlDsliziandmathala. Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications.

I

Faculty's Pedagogical Content Knowledge9

20 '

1/4 11. if,

AERA, 1994